Fedora 16 And GNOME Shell: Tested And Reviewed

Features
By
published

Ubuntu and Mint don't want it; Linus called it an “unholy mess.” While most other distros are passing up or postponing GNOME Shell, Fedora is full steam ahead. Does Red Hat know something the rest of us don't? Or is GNOME 3 really as bad as everyone says?

Benchmark Analysis: Fedora Versus Ubuntu And Windows

The following placing table groups the benchmarks into categories and lists the first-, second-, and third-place finisher of each test.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkFirst PlaceSecond PlaceThird Place
Start And Stop Times
BootUbuntu 11.10Windows 7Fedora 16
Shut DownFedora 16Windows 7Ubuntu 11.10
HibernateFedora 16Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7
WakeWindows 7Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16
File Copy Times
HDD to HDDFedora 16Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7
HDD to USBWindows 7Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16
USB to HDDUbuntu 11.10Windows 7Fedora 16
Archiving
ZipWindows 7Fedora 16Ubuntu 11.10
Un-ZipWindows 7Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16
Tar.gzUbuntu 11.10Fedora 16Windows 7
Un-Tar.gzFedora 16Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7
Multimedia
Video Transcoding (HandBrake)Fedora 16Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7
Audio Encoding (Lame)Fedora 16 & Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7Row 16 - Cell 3
Image Processing (RawTherapee)Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16Windows 7
System
CPU & Memory (Geekbench)Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16Windows 7
CPU: Single-Threaded (POV-Ray)Windows 7Ubuntu 11.10Fedora 16
CPU: Multi-threaded (Blender)Fedora 16Ubuntu 11.10Windows 7
Gaming
AMDUbuntu 11.10Fedora 16Windows 7
NvidiaFedora 16Windows 7Ubuntu 11.10

Results

Fedora takes first place in eight out of 19 tests, while Ubuntu wins seven and Windows wins five. Ubuntu 11.10 has the most second-place finishes with nine, followed by Fedora 16 and Windows 7, with five each. Windows falls to last place most often (nine out of nineteen), followed by Fedora with six third-place finishes and Ubuntu with just three.

Analysis

While Fedora 16 shows more wins than Ubuntu 11.10, many of those are practical ties. Therefore Ubuntu 11.10 remains the king of cross-platform performance. However, as with any cross-platform comparison, this relies on the lowest common denominator of what's available for the operating system with the fewest available applications. So, while both Linux distros beat the performance of Windows 7 in our testing, the ages of our games speak volumes about the real state of affairs. Linux has serious potential as a gaming platform, but a shortage of developer support keeps the energy from becoming kinetic.

Adam Overa
85 Comments Comment from the forums
  • gz3ro
    I think the akmod graphics drivers (also found in the rpmfusion repository) would be better than simply the proprietary drivers because they also work after kernel updates.
    Reply
  • Verrin
    I'm really disappointed with the direction Linux has taken in its user interfaces. I was a big fan of Ubuntu until they switched to Unity, and since then I've been jumping from distro-to-distro trying to find a desktop environment that feels comfortable, isn't terribly difficult to wrap my head around, and that is still powerful. I was using GNOME3 for a while with Linux Mint, but even with the heavy extensions, there are certain functions that I can't quite replicate from the GNOME2 heyday. I wasn't able to get into KDE or XFCE either. They feel aged and aren't quite as sleek as other modern desktop environments, even if you try to fix that by adding customs skins.

    In the end, I'm downgrading to a much older distro of Ubuntu, and supplementing it with Windows 7. I'll be keeping an eye in the coming years to see how these rusty GUI releases turn out-- hopefully for the better. But for now, linux has lost a lot of its useability and it's flare. I'll miss the days when upgrading to a newer distro actually felt like an upgrade, but maybe after all these mistakes, developers will learn and make Linux exciting again. I'll be waiting to see.
    Reply
  • Good grief. What I wouldn't have done years ago for a job that would ask me to write a review on something that would obsolete itself in six months.

    Nobody, IMHO, who actually uses a computer for anything of value wastes their time with Fedora. You can't upgrade it, so your own personal enhancements and bug fixes are lost. Features you like are abandoned for broken replacements. Fedora is a nightmare and has been since it began. I began the adventure years ago with Red Hat 5 and finally gave up and moved to more useful distros after Fedora 8. Fedora is now for the masochistic.

    On the other hand, if you like superficiality, as in wallpaper and clock positions, and enjoy the animated struggle that comes with installing something new all the time and reporting bugs then Fedora is a good thing.
    Reply
  • yumri
    one thing which i would have liked to see on the comparesion would be open time of a Libre Word Processing file, close time of that file, open time of a database file, close time of it, open time of Firefox, close time of Firefox, open time of a typical website like this one, close time of it, install time of the OS, how fast does it run a batch file or equivalent in the OS, and etc. like that things which we actually do a lot besides gaming.
    Reply
  • yumri
    It also seemed like they had a basis towards the GUI way of doing things and thought all users had forsaken CLI scripting for their installs and updates. as if you are getting Fedora you most likely know it was command line based in the start and really is still easier to do everything from command line then from any other route well Ubuntu is made with the GUI interface in mind so things are easier to do with that then with command line mainly because they hid the terminal screen in the newer versions of it.
    With that Fedora is also made for workstations and Ubuntu made for end user support 2 differnet applications so why only show benchmarks of end user things and not anything on network support, domain support, VM thin client viability, accessing files from the network, etc. like that things which Fedora is good at not just things which Ubuntu is I think this article was basised and another should be made with more benchmarks to not be as basised towards one or the other.
    Reply
  • amdfangirl
    One of these days, developers of GUIs will realise going "forward" doesn't equate to an increase of ease of use and functionality.

    Unity, Metro, GNOME 3, Etc.

    Alas, I must suffer each day for the Wacom preferences panel in GNOME settings. Ties me to GNOME 3 (or a derivative). How silly.
    Reply
  • palladin9479
    Now I'm waiting for them to do a Solaris 10 or 11 review. Their both available on x86 so they don't even need to purchase new hardware. Come on it's a "real mans" OS.
    Reply
  • You've completely missed extensions.gnome.org and gnome-tweak-tool, and as a result your review is not an accurate reflection of gnome-shell. Gnome-tweak-tool gives things like "Have file manager handle the desktop" and "Trash icon visible on desktop", plus shell, window, and gtk theme selection, font configuration, and gnome-shell extension management. Extensions.gnome.org provides, well, gnome-shell extensions. Things like "Static Workspaces", which gives you a fixed number of workspaces. Or "Alternative Status Menu", which puts power, reboot, suspend, and hibernate on your status menu. Or "Applications Menu", which provides a Gnome2-like list of windows on the current workspace.

    Now, I admit that neither of these configuration options are immediately visible to a new user. Despite that, your review is bad, and you should feel bad.
    Reply
  • zhihao50
    graph for POV-Ray is wrong, you said both of linux finished 4min before windows yet the graph show the other way around.
    Reply
  • adamovera
    Cowardly AnonYou've completely missed extensions.gnome.org and gnome-tweak-tool, and as a result your review is not an accurate reflection of gnome-shell. Gnome-tweak-tool gives things like "Have file manager handle the desktop" and "Trash icon visible on desktop", plus shell, window, and gtk theme selection, font configuration, and gnome-shell extension management. Extensions.gnome.org provides, well, gnome-shell extensions. Things like "Static Workspaces", which gives you a fixed number of workspaces. Or "Alternative Status Menu", which puts power, reboot, suspend, and hibernate on your status menu. Or "Applications Menu", which provides a Gnome2-like list of windows on the current workspace.Now, I admit that neither of these configuration options are immediately visible to a new user. Despite that, your review is bad, and you should feel bad.See pages 12 through 16.
    Reply